An Englishman explaining to Americans their own constitution, gotta love it.

Sure... a limp wristed Englishman spelling it out for me.

Please read an informative amount of my previous posts.

You seem to be confused as to the temperature of the times. The pillars of many things previously untested are currently being tested. Societies and
countries typically don't set precedences.......... til they do.

edit on 19-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

Hey Mr. think's he know's everything but don't know peanuts..You must read up on the Supremacy Clause.The Clause can hold true with implied
responsibilty.But it does not apply where deemed unconstitutional.Your references to California do not adress constitutional rights.So unless the
constitution is changed it does not apply.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and
U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that
all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
(Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

Originally posted by beezzer
Well, since it is still Constitutional to "bear arms" then the feds don't have a shot (pardon the pun) at getting their way.

It's also in the Constitution that states have rights.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1]
The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the
Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

Yet the feds can still supersede state law when laws conflict. That is why they can raid cannabis dispensaries.
The same thing would happen with gun control, they would find excuses to raid and confiscate guns.

The supremacy clause can apply to protect ceratin rights.But it cannot apply where it contradicts the constitution. In the use of marijuana laws in
California .The Feds moved under implied consent.Not against rights protected by the Constitution.If the law is unconstitutional the clause does not
apply.So unless the Constitution is changed it won't apply.A new law or bill or excutive order doesn't change the Constitution.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
The supremacy clause can apply to protect ceratin rights.But it cannot apply where it contradicts the constitution. In the use of marijuana laws in
California .The Feds moved under implied consent.Not against rights protected by the Constitution.If the law is unconstitutional the clause does not
apply.So unless the Constitution is changed it won't apply. A new law or bill or excutive order doesn't change the Constitution.

Not saying you're wrong but please point out where it says that.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take
precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]...

...The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to
the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[2]...

...As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt",
that state law:

Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v.
Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and
U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that
all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
(Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme,
so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification, is the legal theory that a state has
the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional or exceeds Congresses’ constitutionally authorized
powers. The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated
to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[2]

Yep, that is just what I meant.BTW you should read past the first paragraph.Or you run the risk of not knowing what you are talking about.

I did, I was editing my post when you were replying to it. Please take another look. Feds are not going to take away your right to bear arms. They
do have the legal right to ban certain weapons.

And just because you have the right to bear arms it doesn't mean they can't restrict or even ban gun sales. You would still have the right to bear
arms by the constitution, you just wouldn't be able to buy one.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
The supremacy clause can apply to protect ceratin rights.But it cannot apply where it contradicts the constitution. In the use of marijuana laws in
California .The Feds moved under implied consent.Not against rights protected by the Constitution.If the law is unconstitutional the clause does not
apply.So unless the Constitution is changed it won't apply. A new law or bill or excutive order doesn't change the Constitution.

Not saying you're wrong but please point out where it says that.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take
precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]...

...The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to
the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[2]...

...As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt",
that state law:

Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v.
Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

Again that law does not fall under the Constitution.It falls under the federal Goverments assumed responsibility.These are two very different
applications of the Supremacy Clause.Now to further your arguement I suggest you find where the Federal Goverment Implemented a law not in compliance
with a Constitutional Right.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
I’m waiting for something good (though some could also say bad) to come out concerning all these States, and State and County police arresting
federal agents breaking State laws.

They can't. Fed law supersedes state law. State law enforcement has no power over Federal law enforcement.

I did, I was editing my post when you were replying to it. Please take another look. Feds are not going to take away your right to bear arms. They
do have the legal right to ban certain weapons.

And just because you have the right to bear arms it doesn't mean they can't restrict or even ban gun sales. You would still have the right to bear
arms by the constitution, you just wouldn't be able to buy one.

edit on 1/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Explaining the 2nd amendment to foreign pseudo constitutional lawyers gets so tiring. Your other comments aside the "feds" as you put it have 0
constitutional right to ban gun sales.

You people have to stop confusing empirical theory/opinion with fact because this is not a matter of perspective.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.